SCOTUS Update

SCOTUS | 12/10/2020

[tarpit]

There were a number of new filings today including the defendants response, motions in support, and motions in opposition. Instead of posting them in individual threads, I thought it better to offer the following in a table format.

This is the updated list of SCOTUS motions in Texas vs PA, GA, MI, and WI. Towards the bottom is the Response of Commonwealth.

Filed By	Description	Document
Texas v PA, et al	Motion for leave to file a bill of complaint filed.	source
President Trump	To Intervene	source
Missouri +16 states	In support of Texas	source
Carter Phillips etc al	In Support of Defendants	source
Constitutional Attorneys	In Support of Plaintiff	source
Arizona	In Support of Plaintiff	source
Missouri et al	To Intervene	source
Ohio	In Support of Nobody	source
PA, GA, MI, WI	Response	source
Members of PA General Assembly	In Support of Plaintiff/Defendants	source
PA State Senators	In Support of Neither Party	source
DC + 22 States and Territories in support of Defendents	In Support of Defendants	source
Christian Family Coalition	In Support of Plaintiff	source
State of Michigan	In Opposition	source
Speaker of the House, PA	In Support of Plaintiff	source
State of Georgia	In Opposition	source
Ron Heuer et al	Complaint-in-intervention	source
State of Wisconsin	To File Bill of Complaint and TRO	source
Rep Mike Johnson + 105 Members of the House	In Support of Plaintiff	source

[jersey117]

I think with the Biden stuff coming out SCOTUS just might think it best to rule in Trump’s favor rather than than plunge us into the unknown with kamala in charge. Think we fan count on Brett’s vote.

[livius]

Aren’t those states above supporting “the defendants,” that is the 4 states being sued by Texas et al? Maybe I’m misreading it...

[RummyChick]

I presume you are including Jeb’s buddy Roberts in the 4.

[conservativepoet]

Yep

[BigEdLB]

Nreither is Virgin Islands. Down to 20

[katieanna]

I am quite surprised at the number of Freepers continuing to think SCOTUS will punt. Contrarily, they surely must realize this circumstance is precisely why they exist: to interpret a thing Constitutional or not. In this case, they clearly CAN declare so. Each of them should know that not a more important case shall present to them ever. This is their moment. Courage is required indeed.

[SteveH]

> Nreither is Virgin Islands. Down to 20

and Virgin Islands probably are not even virgin any more either ((snicker))

[centurion316]

how long until the SCOTUS must accept or deny taking the case?

Whenever they feel like it. More likely they will decide either at tomorrow's regular conference, or after they receive Texas' response to the four states briefs.

The Ohio brief stated that SCOTUS could not order Ohio to have their Legislature select electors. He Ohio AG is correct. But, if the Court decides that the four States acted against the Constitution, they can order them to set aside their election certification and then have their Legislature choose an elector slate, vote again by following the law, or do nothing. If they do nothing, then their state electors would not be able to cast their votes. If the Electoral College votes with missing states and if none of the candidates receive 270 electoral votes, the the election goes to the new House of Representative who will vote by state delegation with each state receiving one vote. The winner of this contest will be the President.

[Safrguns]

After reading some of these arguments, something to note stands out...

Arguments to dismiss seem to rely on the premise that claims of fraud are baseless and unproven. (because the lower courts wouldn’t hear them)

So... i’m anticipating or speculating that SCOTUS will zero in on that first... Are claims of fraud that would impact the result baseless or not?

seems to me that if significant fraud CAN be proven, then the defendants do not have a defense.

[DrewsMum]

What Biden stuff? Sorry it’s hard to keep up.

[traderrob6]

Anyone have a current list of states signed ON to Texas suit?

[tarpit]

I think the first thing they have to do is determine if Texas has standing, is the case moot, is it ripe, is the relief sought within reason,...etc.

A number of legal experts have opined they expect SCOTUS to deny this case very quickly. We shall see.

[AlanGreenSpam]

This is probably the key filing from PA:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163367/20201210142206254_Pennsylvania%20Opp%20to%20Bill%20of%20Complaint%20v.FINAL.pdf

They say, among other things, Texas has no standing, etc..

IV.Texas is Not Entitled to the Extraordinary
Preliminary Injunction it Seeks
............................
27A. Texas cannot meet the high standard for
injunctive relief
................................
.................
27B. Texas’s request to disenfranchise tens of
millions of voters who reasonably relied upon
the law at the time of the election does great damage to the public interest
..........................
___________________________________________

PA makes no mention or concern about disenfranchising millions of Republican voters via illegal changes to voting procedures...

Any other opinions of people here who have a legal background?

[DrewsMum]

It’s half n half now. 19 support the 4 defendants. 22 support texas.

[tarpit]

Look in the list for Intervene. Those are the filings related to being a party to the complaint as opposed to filing a motion in support of plaintiff or defendant.

[katieanna]

To secure the standing question, the President joined/intervened in the suit. That takes care of standing. No one has more standing than he.

[jersey117]

MSM finally reporting on Hunter investigation and rumor has it Kamala camp is leaking stuff about Biden.

[RummyChick]

biden’s camp is saying Kamala’s camp is leaking all this bad news

like about investigation into Hunter

[tarpit]

I waited to post this list thinking I had them all, but here is another one in support of plaintiff.

Movants, who are elected and sitting Senators and Representatives of the State of Alaska, State of Arizona, and State of Idaho, and the sitting Lieutenant Governor of the State of Idaho. source

[usconservative]

I am quite surprised at the number of Freepers continuing to think SCOTUS will punt.

Me too. Some apparently have forgotten 2000 when the USSC intervened for far less (hanging chads in one country) in Florida.

I don't see how the USSC can refuse to take the case up and then rule in President Trump's favor. Four states (MI, WI, PA, GA) blatantly violated their own states Constitutions and if past rulings are any indicator, that's NOT something the USSC looks favorably upon.

I'm just glad Roberts cannot re-write this whole mess as a "tax."